Institute for Economic Advancement

Category: Seasonal adjustment

Arkansas Employment and Unemployment – July 2010

By Michael Pakko, August 20, 2010 10:44 AM

 The latest information on Arkansas employment and unemployment was released by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Arkansas Department of Workforce Services this morning.  The report showed encouraging signs of continuing improvement in the Arkansas labor market.  The unemployment rate ticked down one-tenth of one percent to 7.4%.   The household survey also showed that the number of unemployed persons fell by 1,800 in July, dropping below 100,000 for the first time since May 2009.

Source:  Bureau of Labor Statistics

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Analysis of the payroll survey is complicated by seasonal patterns.  Without seasonal adjustment, the data show employment down by nearly 11,000 in July.  However, as shown in the chart below, July is typically a low-point in the recurring seasonal cycle diplayed by employment data.  (See Seasonally Adjusted Unemployment Rates for Arkansas MSAs.)  After seasonally adjusting the raw data, the statistics from BLS show that payroll employment rose by 3,600 jobs.  Since the end of 2009, payroll employment has increased by nearly 16,000 jobs.

Source:  Bureau of Labor Statistics

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

The increase was broad-based, with increases in every major sector except financial services and government.  Employment in manufacturing showed its 7th consecutive monthly increase.  Trade, transportation and utilities was up by 900 jobs, and business and professional services rose by 1,400.  Education and health services continued to expand, adding approximately 2,400 jobs in July.  The decline in government employment can be primarily attributed to layoffs of temporary census workers.

Source:  Bureau of Labor Statistics

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Typical summer doldrums aside, the July employment report provides additional evidence that labor markets in Arkansas are steadily improving.

#  #  #

*Seasonally adjusted data for nonfarm payroll employment, reported in a format compatible with the monthly press release from the Arkansas Department of Workforce Services, are available here
Table – Seasonally Adjusted NFPE.

Metro Area Employment and Unemployment – June Update

By Michael Pakko, July 30, 2010 2:21 PM

June data for metro area employment and unemployment came out earlier this week (see Metropolitan Area Employment and Unemployment Summary from the BLS).  According to the raw numbers—not seasonally adjusted—unemployment rates were unchanged or higher in each of the state’s metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs).   However, June is typically a month in which unemployment ticks upward for purely seasonal reasons.   One factor:  teachers and students are off for the summer, and students in particular are reported as being unemployed if they are seeking, but fail to find summer jobs.** 

After accounting for these recurrent patterns, seasonally adjusted statistics paint a much brighter picture.  Unemployment rates fell in every one of the state’s MSAs.  In many cases, the declines were substantial.

Source:  Bureau of Labor Statistics

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Employment statistics for June (seasonally adjusted by the BLS) showed that payrolls fell in most of Arkansas’ MSAs.  Employment was down by 0.1% in Fayetteville, down 0.9% in Fort Smith, down 0.6% in Little Rock, down 0.4% in Memphis and down 1.1% in Pine Bluff.   Employment was unchanged in Jonesboro, but was up by 0.3% in Hot Springs and up 0.2% in Texarkana.

Cumulative job losses in the state’s MSAs since the start of the recession have varied considerably.   The chart below shows the percentage decline for each MSA since December 2007.

Source:  Bureau of Labor Statistics

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Jonesboro has lost the fewest jobs:  total losses reached a peak of 2.2% in April but have recovered over the past two months.  Similarly, Texarkana has come back from a cumulative loss of 3.3% in December of last year to a total loss of only 1.2% as of June.  Hot Springs losses totalled 6.7% in April, but have bounced back to within 3.8% of the December 2007 level.  Employment in the remaining MSAs is at or near recent low points, having yet shown little sign of recovery.

#   #   #

**The June 2010 issue of Arkansas Labor Market, from the Department of Workforce Services, includes a feature article describing some of the reasons that employment data show seasonal fluctuations.

Arkansas Taxable Sales – Update

By Michael Pakko, June 2, 2010 4:07 PM

As noted in a recent post announcing Arkansas Taxable Sales for the first quarter of 2010, the initial data are preliminary until after more detailed statistics are published by the Department of Finance and Administration (DF&A).  With the release of Arkansas Fiscal Notes for April 2010, revised figures are now available.

The final data show a slightly smaller sales figure for the first quarter, with a downward revision amounting to only 0.25 percent.  The final data still show a strong gain in the 2010:Q1, up 2.1% (seasonally adjusted).  This follows a 1.0% gain in the fourth quarter of last year.

TextBox2010Q1

The release this morning of the monthly general revenue report for May also provides information to update the monthly series with preliminary data for April 2010.   These estimates show that  Arkansas Taxable Sales in April were up 1.7 percent from March (seasonally adjusted).  Although these data are based on preliminary and incomplete information, it would appear that retail sales were off to a strong start in the second quarter of 2010. 

Arkansas Taxable Sales statistics are constructed by the Institute for Economic Advancement using tax collection data from the Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration. Data for April 2010 are preliminary.

Arkansas Taxable Sales statistics are constructed by the Institute for Economic Advancement using tax collection data from the Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration. Data for April 2010 are preliminary.

 Updated and revised data are available in Excel spreadsheet form by clicking here.

Arkansas Employment and Unemployment – February 2010

By Michael Pakko, March 26, 2010 3:01 PM

“… a dismal report”

The February report on state-level employment and unemployment was released by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Arkansas Department of Workforce Services this morning.  Set against the backdrop of expectations for a stabilizing employment situation, the Arkansas report is disappointing at best. 

Household survey

The headline news was an increase in the unemployment rate from 7.6 percent in January to 7.7 in February.  This is not a substantial change, but the upward creep is unwelcome news.  Changes in the underlying components of the unemployment rate highlight the weakness:  The number of employed was down by 1,142 and the number of unemployed was up by 1,285.

Source:  Bureau of Labor Statistics

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

 

Payroll Survey

Not seasonally adjusted, nonfarm payroll employment in Arkansas fell only slightly in February (down by 300 jobs from January).  However, as shown in the chart below, January is usually a low point in the seasonal cycle of employment, with February tending to show a rebound as we head for the spring months.  After seasonal adjustment, the decline in February was substantial:  down 7,300 jobs.  In percentage terms, this represents a decline of 0.6%–the third largest drop among the 50 states in February.  This is a larger one-month loss than any we observed for Arkansas during the depths of the 2008-09 recession.

Source:  Bureau of Labor Statistics

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

The table below summarizes the change in employment by sector.  Employment was down in nearly every sector in February.  The largest declines were in Trade, Transportation and Utilities; Professional and Business Services; and Other Services.  Construction employment continues to fall.  In February, construction employment fell below 50,000 (seasonally adjusted) for the first time since January 1999.

Source:  Bureau of Labor Statistics

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

There were two relatively positive aspects of the report.  First, the data from January were revised to show a larger employment increase than previously reported.  As a result, some service-sector categories have shown positive growth, on net, over the first two months of the year.  The second positive element of the February report was manufacturing employment, which was up by 1,500 jobs.  Manufacturing employment has been experiencing a protracted period of decline.  The February increase provides further evidence that the sector is stabilizing.

One should never put too much emphasis on a single month’s observations—and the numbers released this morning are subject to future revision.  Nevertheless, taken at face value, today’s data-release represents a dismal report.

Metro Area Employment & Unemployment – January 2010

By Michael Pakko, March 24, 2010 8:59 AM

The latest information on employment and unemployment for Arkansas Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) was released last week.   The data for January were mixed.  There were no clear signs of recovery in regional labor markets, but no further deterioration was evident either.  This is consistent with the statewide data reported in a previous post–showing the state’s unemployment rate unchanged with only a small increase in payroll employment.

Household Survey

As displayed in the table below, the household survey showed that changes in unemployment rates around the state were mixed.  The unemployment rate ticked up in the Fayetteville, Fort Smith, Hot Springs and Texarkana.  It was unchanged in Little Rock and declined in Jonesboro and Pine Bluff.  

Sources:  Bureau of Labor Statistics, Institute for Economic Advancement

Sources: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Institute for Economic Advancement

The drop in Pine Bluff’s unemployment rate was particularly sharp.  In recent years, Pine Bluff has experienced large swings in employment and unemployment from December to January.  The changes were smaller this year, resulting in a measured decline in the seasonally-adjusted unemployment rate.   We’ll have to wait and see whether this is just a statistical fluke or a significant change.

Payroll Survey

The January payroll survey also showed mixed changes in employment.  Seasonally adjusted, January payroll employment was up slightly from the previous month in Texarkana, unchanged in Jonesboro, and down a bit in the state’s other MSAs. 

Source:  Bureau of Labor Statistics

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

(Note:  Although we have seen no formal annoucement of the change, the BLS public database now provides seasonally adjusted payroll employment data for Arkansas MSAs.  Assuming that this practice continues, the Arkansas Economist will henceforth rely on these official seasonally adjusted series, rather than using data adjusted by the Institute for Economic Advancement.)

Benchmark Revisions

This data release also included the annual benchmark revisions that have been discussed extensively in recent posts on the Arkansas Economist (MSA revisions were discussed here).  As expected, the revised data show sharply greater job losses during the recession than were previously reported — for most of the state’s MSAs.  The revised data show that Jonesboro was the only metro area to show positive growth in 2008, and all of the states MSAs suffered employment losses during 2009.  The decline in Fort Smith was particularly steep.

Source:  Bureau of Labor Statistics

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Although the revisions showed larger employment declines for most of Arkansas’ MSAs, the revised data for Pine Bluff show that job losses were not as large as previously reported.  In this case, it’s no fluke.  The updated statistics are based on very accurate data from the Quarterly Census of Wages and Employment (QCEW)  for 2008 and early 2009.  

The anomolous upward revision to the payroll data for Pine Bluff was anticipated in a previous post on the Arkansas Economist.  A more complete evaluation of our exercise in “forecasting a revision of history” is forthcoming.

Arkansas Taxable Sales

By Michael Pakko, March 16, 2010 4:51 PM

A new indicator of economic activity for the Arkansas economy

Retail sales statistics for the U.S. economy are regularly compiled by the Census Bureau.  However, there is no readily-available, timely source of data for retail sales on the state level.  One approach to filling this gap is to use state sales tax collections as a measure of taxable sales.   In principle, the approach is quite simple:  Taxable sales = Sales tax collections/tax rate.  In order to extrapolate sales statistics from tax data, however, it is necessary to consider the coverage of the tax, changes in tax law, and the timing of state revenue collection relative to the underlying sales.

Arkansas has four separate sales taxes imposed on a common base:  a general sales and use tax of 4.5 percent, a tax for the educational adequacy fund of  0.875 percent, a property tax relief tax of 0.5 percent, and a conservation tax of 0.125 percent (for a total tax rate of 6.0 percent).  Each of these taxes could conceivably be used to identify overall sales activity.  However, recent changes in tax structure complicate matters.  In particular, the tax rate on grocery purchases was lowered from 6.0 percent to 3.0 percent in July 2007, then lowered again to 2.0 percent in July 2009.  When these tax cuts were adopted by the state legislature, the associated revenue reductions were specified to be subtracted from three of the four specific taxes, in proportion to their relative rates.  As a result, these three taxes (general sales and use, educational adequacy, and property tax relief) no longer represent a constant fraction of total sales–rather, they represent a weighted average of taxes on non-grocery items (at the statutory rate) and taxes on groceries (at a lower rate).  Only the 1/8-percent conservation tax remains at its statutory rate.  (The conservation tax is not affected by recent tax law changes because it is written into the state constitution.)  The conservation tax is therefore a unique candidate for use in estimating the underlying tax base.

A second important factor for deriving sales information from tax collection data is the timing of tax receipts relative to the  sales being taxed.  Tax laws in Arkansas impose different requirements on different sized businesses.   Some larger firms can choose to pay estimated taxes for the current month, while some smaller firms are required to file and pay only quarterly or annually. For most business, however, the key deadline comes on the 24th day of the month.  On that date, final statements and payments for taxes owed in the previous month are due.

The tax payment deadlines suggest that revenues received by the state during a month primarily reflect taxable sales from the previous month.  An examination of the raw data supports this timing convention.  For example, when the special conservation tax was implemented in 2001—and again when the earmarked educational adequacy tax was introduced in 2004—revenues received in the first month of implementation were a very small proportion of subsequent months.  The seasonal pattern of sales tax receipts is also indicative:  The most prominent recurrent peak in tax receipts occurs in January, one month after the December retail sales peak.  As the payment regulations indicate, tax receipts reflect a mix of taxable sales from current and previous months.  Nevertheless, the best practical estimate seems to be a simple one-month lag.

So, using receipts from the conservation tax and adjusting the timing to reflect the one-month collection lag, we can calculate a measure of taxable sales.  Monthly data for this series are illustrated in the figure below:

Arkansas Taxable Sales

 Although there is a great deal of month-to-month variability in this measure, recent observations suggest that sales activity reached a low point around mid-2009, with signs of recovery since then.

In interpreting the data, a number of caveats should be considered:

  • The series is labeled “taxable sales” rather than “retail sales” because Arkansas sales and use taxes apply not only to retail transactions, but also to some business-to-business transactions.
  • Some of the monthly variability in the series can be attributed to specific institutional factors in the tax collection process.  For example, the rather sharp upturn observed for December 2009 (reflecting tax collections in January 2010) was partly attributable to “one-time gains from audit payments” [see General Revenue Report for January (FY 2010)].
  • Another previous change in the tax structure should also be mentioned:  in 2004, with the introduction of the educational adequacy tax, the sales tax base was broadened.  Although there is no evident break in the path of total tax revenues, this consideration warns against making direct comparisons between post-2004 and pre-2004 data.  (The expansion of the tax base accounts for a revenue increase of only about 0.5 percent.)
  • The most recent observations in the series should be considered preliminary.  Data for the conservation tax are not explicitly reported in the General Revenue Reports, but are available in the publication Arkansas Fiscal Notes, which is available a few weeks after the initial report.  Until the publication of Arkansas Fiscal Notes, the change in general gross receipts is used as a preliminary approximation.

Given some of these considerations, it is best not to focus on very short-term changes in the data.  The chart below shows the results of averaging the data over calendar quarters.  The chart juxtaposes Arkansas Taxable Sales with a quarterly measure of  U.S. retail sales.

Sources:  U.S. Census Bureau, Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration, Institute for Economic Advancement.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration, Institute for Economic Advancement.

A comparison of the measures for Arkansas and the U.S. reveals an interesting pattern:  Sales in Arkansas reached a peak about one quarter later than the U.S., and experienced sharp declines with a similar lag.  Moreover, the percent change from peak to trough is smaller for the Arkansas data than for the U.S.  This pattern is consistent with the notion that Arkansas’ economy was dragged into recession by economic weakness in the rest of the country.  Both measure show increase toward the end of 2009, confirming the general observation that both the national and Arkansas economies are beginning to recover from the recession of 2008-09.

Arkansas Employment and Unemployment – January 2010

By Michael Pakko, March 10, 2010 5:33 PM

The latest state-level data on employment and unemployment were released today, covering January 2010.  We’re getting this monthly information a little bit later than usual because the Bureau of Labor Statistics took some additional time to go through the annual process of revising previously-published data using more complete information.

The unemployment rate in Arkansas held steady at 7.6 percent in January, remaining well below the U.S. average of 9.7 percent.  Today’s data release included a new smoothing technique for seasonally-adjusted unemployment data that eliminates some of the month-to-month variability.  By this new measure, the unemployment rate in Arkansas has been holding in the range of 7.5 to 7.6 percent for the past 6 months.  There is no indication that the unemployment rate is poised to go any higher, but neither is there any indication (yet) of an imminent decline in unemployment.

Source:  Bureau of Labor Statistics
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

The payroll employment figures showed some signs of recovery in service-sector employment.  Total nonfarm payrolls increased by 1,700 jobs in January (seasonally adjusted) with increases in the categories of Financial Services, Professional and Business Services, Education and Health Services, Leisure and Hospitality, and Other Services.  We continue to see weakness in the goods-producing sectors.  Manufacturing employment had been up slightly toward the end of 2009, but was down by 1,900 jobs in January.

Source:  Bureau of Labor Statistics

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

The payroll employment figures that were released this morning incorporated new benchmark revisions.  As reported on previous pages of the Arkansas Economist (here, here and here), the annual exercise of reconciling data from the Current Employment Statistics (CES) program with the Quarterly Census of Wages and Employment (QCEW) was expected to show sharply larger job-losses during 2009 than were previously recorded in the data.  This did, in fact, prove to be the case.  As shown in the figure below, the revised data show that payroll employment declined more sharply during 2008 and 2009 than was reported at the time, with previously unrecorded job losses accumulating to 18,200 by the end of the year (as of December). 

Source:  Bureau of Labor Statistics

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

The fact that job losses during 2009 were greater than previously measured is–to some extent–old news.  However, it means that it will take longer to see employment increase to the levels we saw prior to the onset of recession.

Arkansas Home Sales: Steady Recovery During 2009

By Michael Pakko, February 22, 2010 8:04 PM

As described in a previous article on Arkansas Economist, realtors’ associations provide  two independent measure of Arkansas home sales.  The National Association of Realtors® (NAR) conducts nationwide surveys to estimate total U.S. home sales, and provides quarterly estimates of sales at the state level.  Locally, the Arkansas Realtors® Association (ARA) publishes monthly totals of Homes Sold in Arkansas by Realtors®, which represents a compilation of data from participating multiple listing services around the state. 

Despite their differing methodology and coverage, the two sources of information about the Arkansas real estate market reveal the same pattern:  Sales volumes declined steadily during 2007 and 2008, reaching a low point in the fourth quarter of 2008.  During 2009, however, sales showed steady improvement.

The chart below illustrates these patterns.  It shows both the NAR and ARA measures of home sales  expressed in directly comparable forms — as indexes normalized to equal one in 2007.*  The chart shows that in sales in the fourth quarter of 2008 had fallen by nearly one-third from the average volume of 2007.  After steady increases during 2009 (seasonally adjusted), sales in the fourth quarter of 2009 were back up to well over 80 percent of their 2007 pace.

The outlook for Arkansas’ housing market is generally good.  There may be brief sales downturns associated with the expiration of home-buyer tax incentives later this year and with inevitable increases in mortgage rates as economic expansion picks up pace.  Nevertheless, the steady increase in sales during 2009 suggests that the residential real estate market in Arkansas is well on its way to recovery.  

HomeSales2009

Sources: National Association of Realtors®, Arkansas Realtors® Association, Moody's Economy.com, Institute for Economic Advancement.

*The NAR measure is published quarterly on a seasonally adjusted basis.  The specific measure used in the chart is Existing Single-Family Home Sales, as reported by Moody’s Economy.com. The ARA measure is published monthly and is not seasonally adjusted.  To construct the chart, ARA data were seasonally adjusted using the method described in a previous post, then averaged over quarters.   Raw data and monthly reports for Homes Sold in Arkansas by Realtors® is available at the Arkansas Realtors® Association blog, The Arkansas Realtor®.

Metro Area Employment & Unemployment – 2009

By Michael Pakko, February 11, 2010 12:50 PM

Last week, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) announced its estimates for employment and unemployment in the nation’s Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) for December 2009. 

Unemployment rates for Arkansas MSAs were changed little from the previous month (seasonally adjusted).   As shown in the table below, the unemployment rate declined slightly in Fort Smith, rose slightly in Little Rock and Texarkana, and was unchanged in the state’s other MSAs.

Sources:  Bureau of Labor Statistics, Institute for Economic Advancement.

Sources: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Institute for Economic Advancement.

Compared to a year earlier, unemployment rates across the state were up sharply, with increases ranging from 1.1 percentage points (Fayetteville) to 1.9 percentage points (Fort Smith).

The December payroll employment statistics–compiled from a separate suvey–indicate a similar pattern.  From the previous month, job losses were recorded in all MSAs except Fort Smith (where employment was unchanged).  Over the last six months of 2009, employment declines ranged from 0.1 percent (Fort Smith and Texarkana) to 3.7 percent (Hot Springs).

Sources:  Bureau of Labor Statistics, Institute for Economic Advancement.

Sources: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Institute for Economic Advancement.

The next BLS release of payroll employment data will incorporate annual benchmark revisions.  As described in a previous article, these revisions are expected to show sharper job losses during the second quarter of 2009 than shown in the current data.  The table below illustrates the expected magnitude of the downward revisions for Arkansas’ MSAs, expressed as cumulative employment declines since the onset of the recession in December 2007.

Sources:  Bureau of Labor Statistics, Institute for Economic Advancement.

Sources: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Institute for Economic Advancement.

For most of Arkansas’ MSAs, the revisions are expected to be substantial.  Larger job losses are likely to be recorded for all MSAs except Pine Bluff, and in many cases the revised employment declines will be more than twice as large as the currently published statistics suggest.    In some sense, the data revisions reflect “old news:” the changes primarily reflect the evaluation of labor market conditions in the spring of 2009.  Nevertheless, the new data will change our perspective on where we presently stand and will have implications for the employment outlook in Arkansas’ MSAs as the economic recovery proceeds.

Another Round of State Budget Cuts

By Michael Pakko, January 11, 2010 4:51 PM

Governor Beebe announced another round of state budget cuts this morning.  The cutbacks total $106 million of spending, amounting to about 2.4% of the state’s budget.  Today’s announcment followed last week’s report from the Department of Finance and Administration (DF&A) that showed state revenues continuing to fall short of expectations.

For the first six months of the 2010 fiscal year (July-December 2009),  gross general revenues were down $80 million– about 3 percent–from the previous year.  More important, gross revenues were 1.9 percent below DF&A’s forecast.  As shown in the chart below, gross revenue has shown some signs of a comeback in recent months.  However, the rebound is not as large as was anticipated in the state’s revenue forcast (as revised in October 2009).

Gross General Revenues

Source: Arkansas Deparment of Finance and Administration. Seasonal adjustment by the Institute for Economic Advancement

Gross General Revenues measure the total income for the state.  A more important measure for the budget is known as Net Available Revenues, which is equal to gross revenues minus some specific budgetary obligations (including tax refunds, bond payments, earmarked education funds, etc.).   Net available revenues measure the resources that are available for funding ongoing state government operations.  According to the DF&A report last week, net revenues for the first half of FY2010 were $37.7 million (1.7 percent) lower than in the previous year, and were 2.4 percent lower than the DF&A revised forecast. 

This second round of budget cuts for FY2010 should be sufficient to keep the state’s finances in balance.  As is clear in the chart above, however, a large share of the state’s revenues arrive in the second calendar quarter of the year (the last quarter of the fiscal year).   Consequently, we should have a much clearer picture of the state’s budget situation for FY2010 after income tax returns are filed in April.

Selected news coverage about the budget cuts:

Panorama Theme by Themocracy

AWSOM Powered